Peer-To-Peer Innovation Networks

How often do we design with people, instead of for them? It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that creativity is something only designers hold the key to. But when we pause and engage with communities, we realize something powerful: Creativity thrives within the community itself—it just needs the right conditions to flourish. Take, for example, the Collective Action Toolkit (CAT) by Frog. It’s not just a tool; it’s a framework that empowers communities to solve problems by tapping into their collective strength. Through a series of activities—like clarifying goals and imagining new ideas—small groups around the world have used this toolkit to not only share their thoughts but to take decisive action that addresses their concerns. The beauty of this approach is in its adaptability. It’s not a one-size-fits-all model. Each group can mould it to fit their unique needs, ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard and valued. But collaboration, as we know, isn’t always easy. There’s often discomfort, sometimes even conflict, when differing ideas meet. Yet, as designers, navigating these challenges is where true progress happens. As Otto Scharmer and Peter Senge, leaders in organizational development, have shown, it's in this space of tension that new solutions are born. A recent contribution from @Design Impact offers a set of guiding principles for designers to keep in mind when working with communities. One of these, “Value me for who I am, not who I’m told to be,” resonates deeply. It’s a reminder that behind every design is a real person, with history, emotions, and passions. When we acknowledge that, we move beyond simply gathering feedback—we tap into real leadership within the community. At the end of the day, Social innovation isn’t just about creating a product or service. It’s about co-creating, about building alongside communities rather than handing down solutions. It’s about fostering a space where everyone’s creativity can shine, and where long-term, sustainable change is possible. Have you been part of a design process that values community leadership? What challenges—and opportunities—did you encounter along the way?

Last week 95 members of the Innovative Finance Initiative community came together to map how impact is being hardwired into the core mechanics of finance. During the session, we piloted a live community mapping exercise. Each group shared live examples of how they’re embedding (or seeing embedded) impact into 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘐𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴. The result? A rich harvest of concrete practices, structural innovations, and collective questions for the field. Here are some of the insights that surfaced: 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 💸 Blended finance stacks de-risking regenerative agriculture and climate resilience 🌱 Evergreen funds & community ownership models to preserve long-term benefit 🛡️ Steward ownership & perpetual trusts to lock in mission across ownership transitions 📜 Legal clauses & fiduciary reforms enabling investors to prioritize impact alongside returns 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 📊 GP carry and staff bonuses tied directly to impact KPIs 💵 Loan pricing that rewards verified community benefit 🌦️ Guarantees & parametric insurance unlocking risk-taking in underserved markets 🏅 Certifications & reputation-based systems rewarding transparency and collaboration 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 🤝 Participatory due diligence with community-designed scoring rubrics 📈 Living impact reports & dashboards updated in real time with stakeholder input 🗳️ Co-created governance, advisory panels & reviewer councils drawn from impacted communities 📖 Narrative-based reporting to capture unintended consequences & emergent outcomes 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬-𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐬 📚 Appetite for shared infrastructure—repositories of tools, templates & examples 🗺️ Calls for mapping actors & use cases to reduce duplication and identify gaps ✊ Embedding justice, equity & systems thinking into design, not just outcomes The takeaway? Our community is not just experimenting—it is actively redesigning the architecture of finance to be more inclusive, accountable, and purpose-driven. IFI will continue expanding the Resource Hub with the examples and resources shared, and will integrate these insights into upcoming Missions and our Community Directory. Huge thanks to my incredible team Maegan Storm Lillis Tasneem Jhetam Peter Chakaniza Daniel Bannister for their hard work and our co-facilitators for leading the conversations Maegan Moorehart Mairi-Jane Fox, PhD Juan Jardon-Pina Karim Harji Esme Verity Macarena Machimbarrena & Elizabeth Blacklin. #InnovativeFinance #ImpactInvesting #AdventureFinance #RadicalCollaboration

I've spent much of my career working at the intersection of innovation, evidence, and implementation. One question keeps coming up: How do we ensure that research actually leads to better outcomes for children? That's why I'm excited to share our new paper, published in the JoGH World, examining UNICEF-supported embedded implementation research initiatives across multiple countries. The findings reinforce something that sounds like common sense, but is not yet standard practice: evidence is far more likely to drive change when research is conducted with decision-makers rather than for them. Across the projects analysed, embedded implementation research contributed to policy adaptations, programme improvements, and stronger service delivery, particularly in areas such as immunisation and child health. As global health systems face increasingly complex challenges, we need approaches that help us learn and adapt in real time. Embedded implementation research is one way of closing the gap between knowing and doing. Grateful to my co-authors and colleagues across countries who contributed to this work. ASM Shahabuddin, PhD Robert Scherpbier Alyssa Beth Sharkey 🔗 https://lnkd.in/dQrBudNi #ImplementationResearch #GlobalHealth #LearningHealthSystems #UNICEF #HealthInnovation

I have met countless changemakers who pour their hearts into building solutions that truly work. You see it in their eyes, the hope, the persistence, and the deep belief that communities can change when given the right tools. Yet again and again, we see powerful ideas lose momentum when a project ends or leadership changes. The problem is rarely a lack of commitment. It is how our systems are built. Too many social innovations live inside single organizations. They rely on the energy of a few people or the life of one funding cycle. When those stop, the impact often stops too. That is why the real challenge in social innovation is not just proving that change is possible, but ensuring it lasts. That is what Pathways to Scaling with Governments explores. The new guide looks at how innovators can move from running programs to transforming systems, embedding proven solutions into public institutions like education, health, and social protection so that what works locally can grow and endure nationally. This approach has shaped much of my journey through One Family Foundation, Child and Youth Finance International, Catalyst 2030, and now through GCSI. I have seen how partnerships built on trust can turn bold ideas into lasting systems. Real impact happens when innovators and governments work together, not in isolation. When collaboration replaces parallel effort, solutions move from small pilots to national reach. Scaling responsibly is not about expanding for the sake of growth. It is about designing for permanence. It is about building systems that can hold, adapt, and sustain change long after individual projects or organizations step back. This guide offers a practical roadmap for anyone ready to make that shift, for founders, funders, and policymakers who understand that lasting change is built through shared ownership and long-term commitment. You can read and download Pathways to Scaling with Governments here: https://rb.gy/uzqyaz #ScalingImpact #SystemsChange #PublicSystems #SocialInnovation #GCSI #OneFamily

#Innovation is a real buzz word – in agriculture as well. Perhaps because farming is one of the least digitized of all economic sectors, and things are changing fast! But also because food justice and security are still too often elusive.   Hundreds of "innovative" products are emerging for various 𝙥𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡 benefits. Drones, robotics, vertical farming, the omics, precision agriculture and many other AgTech. However, innovation IS NOT invention.     Yes, both involve the creation of knowledge. However, innovation also encompasses all that matters around: 1) the #demand for knowledge 2) the #use of knowledge in novel and useful ways   For instance, it is very common that new technologies are either: ❌ not used at all by farmers 💡 used in ways not previously envisaged by developers or scientists. 🔄 Experimenting collaboratively on-farm enables stakeholders to #learn how farmers make decisions and use technologies, in relation to the actual #constraints under which they operate.  🔄 In turn, farmers’ own #knowledge and #knowhow gets connected to other ideas.   Rather than pushing AgTech, inputs, germplasm or any other technology onto farmers, what if institutions supported farmers to investigate locally available knowledge, solutions and practices, and build on that? 🌱🌱🌱 🛠️🛠️🛠️ OFE is a #process for technology developers, scientists and farmers to co-create knowledge and technologies that are 'fit-for-purpose', legitimate, credible and trustworthy. There are many ways to do OFE – the principles below are #guiding lights to keep in mind when  operationalizing; it can’t be solely #data-driven, but it’s can’t just be a #social exercise either. All facets are needed. Real life is #complex! 🗺️ Do you know #alliances that have made farmer-centric On-Farm Experimentation business-as-usual?

Have you ever wondered about the magic that happens when design and development come together? Let's dive into it. In my years of experience as a CTO, I've seen firsthand how the fusion of design and development can transform a project. Here's how to make it work seamlessly: Collaboration is key → Designers and developers should work handinhand from the start. → Regular brainstorming sessions can bridge gaps and spark innovative ideas. Clear Communication → Use tools like wireframes and mockups to visualise the end product. → Consistent updates ensure everyone is on the same page. Respect Each Other's Expertise → Designers bring aesthetic and user experience insights. → Developers focus on functionality and feasibility. → Both perspectives are crucial for a successful project. Iterative Process → Adopt an iterative approach with regular feedback loops. → This allows for tweaks and improvements along the way. User Centric Mindset → Always keep the enduser in mind. → Design should enhance usability, and development should ensure performance. Embrace Flexibility → Be open to changes and adjustments. → The best solutions often come from unexpected directions. Remember, it's not about design vs. development. It's about design development. When both teams collaborate effectively, the result is a product that not only looks good but also works flawlessly. What strategies have you found effective in merging design and development? Share your experiences below.

Inside a Regulated Enterprise: How One Team Built an Innovation Engine I can't share the company name, but I can share the playbook. Inside a multi-billion-dollar, highly regulated organisation, a small innovation team faced the classic challenge: how do you move fast when every decision needs approval, when compliance is non-negotiable, and when "just try it" isn't an option? They didn't ask for permission to move faster. Instead, they partnered with Legal and Risk from day one. They embedded Pretotyping as the method for turning opinion into evidence. And they built safe-to-fail guardrails that could be reused across multiple experiments. The transformation was remarkable. What used to be "opinion shipping" - building features based on what stakeholders thought customers wanted - became an evidence-led Innovation Engine. ⊙Those retail touchpoint screens that everyone assumed were just "noise"? They became measurable conversion channels. ⊙Time from idea to first experiment? Down to about 8 days. In roughly 12 months, they ran over 130 live experiments. But the real win wasn't the volume. It was the shift in decision quality. Leaders started trusting the process because experiments consistently answered "Should we build this?" before anyone wasted time on "How do we build this?" What made it work? Three things stood out. 1. They partnered with Legal and Risk early, not as gatekeepers, but as experiment design partners. Getting permission frameworks upfront meant velocity later. 2. They ran concurrent experiments. Patterns across multiple tests improved their selection quality. What worked in one channel informed tests in three others. 3. They prioritised speed over perfection. Imperfect experiments that shipped in 8 days beat perfect plans that took months. 🕳️ To read the full case study, see the link in the comments below. The takeaway: Velocity without validated ideas is just fast failure. Pretotyping gives you both.

Lean Community:  Knowledge-Sharing.  In The High-Velocity Edge, Steve Spear explores how top-performing organizations achieve continuous learning and improvement through deeply embedded knowledge-sharing mechanisms. High-velocity organizations—such as Toyota, Alcoa, and parts of the U.S. Navy—excel by creating environments where learning is constant, fast, and widely distributed. Highly Recommend ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ -------------------- Spear identifies four key capabilities enabling these organizations to prevent knowledge from being siloed and instead drive systemic learning: 🏆 Seeing Problems as They Occur:  High-velocity organizations empower employees at all levels to detect abnormalities immediately. This real-time problem identification ensures issues are visible and actionable rather than hidden or ignored. 🏆 Swarming and Solving Problems Immediately: Once problems are seen, teams swarm to resolve them collaboratively. This mechanism accelerates learning and ensures that solutions are shared widely, rather than hoarded by a few. 🏆 Spreading New Knowledge Rapidly: Companies like Toyota standardize successful solutions and disseminate them across the organization. This avoids reinvention and ensures best practices are embedded into processes. The use of common tools, shared language, and simple documentation supports this rapid transfer. 🏆 Leading by Teaching: Leaders in high-velocity organizations serve as coaches, reinforcing learning principles and modeling behavior that encourages inquiry and continuous improvement. They create a culture where asking questions, experimenting, and sharing results—both successes and failures—are expected and valued. To prevent knowledge from being siloed, these companies institutionalize learning into routines and structures, making it a core part of daily work. Continuous feedback loops, process transparency, and decentralized problem-solving all contribute to a culture of shared learning. Ultimately, The High-Velocity Edge illustrates that sustainable competitive advantage comes not from one-time innovation but from an organizational system that learns faster and spreads knowledge more effectively than the competition. -------------------- Questions: 1. Is a culture of decentralized problem-solving more effective than centralized expertise for sustained organizational learning? 2. Can standardized processes for sharing knowledge limit innovation by enforcing conformity? 3. How can organizations balance speed in knowledge dissemination with ensuring the accuracy and quality of the information being shared? Looking forward to your comments! https://a.co/d/gwIBSYD #ContinuousImprovement #CultureMatters